Comments on This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocatesTypePad2012-12-11T18:47:02ZEric Zornhttp://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/tag:typepad.com,2003:http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/12/this-is-not-the-end-of-the-world-gun-control-advocates/comments/atom.xml/Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c349f434d970b2012-12-15T00:48:14Z2012-12-15T00:48:21ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4I would respond with what was said before: This truly is the safest time to be an American since at...<p>I would respond with what was said before:</p>
<p>This truly is the safest time to be an American since at least the early 1960s. One need only examine the FBI&#39;s uniform crime reports to determine that violent criminal activity began rising slowly around 1965, took off like mad in the early 70s, peaked in 1991 and has been steadily declining ever since.</p>
<p>At the same time, gun laws have gotten less and less stringent, and overall gun ownership has increased...most substantially since 2002.<br />
If there really were anything to the notion that weaker gun laws and more people possessing firearms facilitated criminal activity then the early 90s to present should have gone very different.</p>
<p>I would also add that it is tempting to think you can pass laws that will stop the one person out of fifty million who has in them this type of willingness to do evil, but you can&#39;t. </p>
<p>Ultimately what happens when you attempt to pass such laws under the panicked notion that &#39;we must do something now!!!!&#39; you get such legislative gems as the Patriot Act.</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6408f5f970d2012-12-14T19:21:16Z2012-12-14T19:21:16ZJLI will go one step further. There have been quite a few school shooting incidents in recent years around the...<p>I will go one step further. There have been quite a few school shooting incidents in recent years around the country -- presumably in states with a range of gun laws. In how many have armed civilians used their guns to make the situation better?</p>
<p>Honest question to which I do not know the answer. (I cannot recall any such cases but I am not saying my memory is reliable on this matter.) I am prepared to follow the data on this issue but I call on gun-rights advocates to do the same. If a fair analysis showed that relatively wide access to guns is, on net, costing children&#39;s lives in these situations, that seems like something you need to address.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee640385a970d2012-12-14T18:37:15Z2012-12-14T18:37:15ZEsmomAnd yet we have 27 people dead at the hands of a gunman today. 18 elementary school kids. My hands...<p>And yet we have 27 people dead at the hands of a gunman today. 18 elementary school kids. My hands are shaking as I type...can anyone but me (here anyway) admit that perhaps guns should not have such a prominent place in a supposedly civilized society?! Anyone?</p>Anonymitus commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee63ab6b6970d2012-12-14T04:03:18Z2012-12-14T04:03:18ZAnonymitusAntigun laws don't reduce crime or make us safe. They do the opposite, they increase crime and they make us...<p>Antigun laws don&#39;t reduce crime or make us safe. They do the opposite, they increase crime and they make us less safe.</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ec5ce6b970c2012-12-14T02:52:15Z2012-12-14T02:52:21ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4@Esmom Never have 'needed' one, and if I live out my life never having to that would be just fine...<p>@Esmom </p>
<p>Never have &#39;needed&#39; one, and if I live out my life never having to that would be just fine by me.</p>
<p>&quot;Leave it to the professionals&quot;<br />
As much as people like to believe so, police are not necessarily bastions of firearms knowledge, safety, and skill. <br />
In fact, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised to learn that a majority of police officers only do the bare minimum required to maintain their firearms certification (ie they go to the range only when required). According to the very first link I found on this very question (author was a police trainer), and an informal unscientific poll of a small sample of Florida police officers that number may be almost 100%...if that&#39;s anything close to reality, that is not exactly confidence inspiring about the &#39;professionals&#39;</p>
<p>When I used to be more into all things guns, I would go at least once a month, and I thought that wasn&#39;t nearly enough for proficiency. Most of the guys I knew who promoted CCW went once or twice a week.</p>Greg J. commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6381844970d2012-12-13T20:56:50Z2012-12-13T20:56:50ZGreg J.@Esmom, Fortunately, the instances when people have to use a weapon to defend themselves are relatively rare, yet they do...<p>@Esmom,</p>
<p>Fortunately, the instances when people have to use a weapon to defend themselves are relatively rare, yet they do occur and we read about them all of the time. I wear a seat belt to protect myself from a car accident although I hope to never be in a serious one. I have a burglar alarm to protect myself from burglars although I hope my house is never broken into. I carry a knife at all times although I hope to never need to use it defensively. Hope isn&#39;t good enough and assuming that you will never be a target is dangerous thinking.</p>
<p>There are many people out there who would make a bad situation worse if they had a weapon. I&#39;m comfortable and experienced in firing rifles and handguns. I don&#39;t want someone else making my personal defense choices for me. I&#39;m not naive enough to think that a police officer is going to help me when I need him. I know I need to take responsibility for my own protection. Others are free to make their own choices, including pretending that it could never happen to them.</p>Boris Gendelev commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ec2e307970c2012-12-13T18:38:36Z2012-12-13T18:38:36ZBoris GendelevI think the main point here is that gun control as means of violence reduction is an idea without empirical...<p>I think the main point here is that gun control as means of violence reduction is an idea without empirical support. The same for the idea of guns as means of violence reduction. So the energies should be directed elsewhere.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3493c009970b2012-12-13T18:17:06Z2012-12-13T18:17:06ZEsmomI hear what everyone's saying about feeling they should be allowed to protect themselves. But how many people here have...<p>I hear what everyone&#39;s saying about feeling they should be allowed to protect themselves. But how many people here have actually found themselves in situations where a weapon was needed? </p>
<p>As a woman, I have been concerned with my personal safety since my early teens. I took self-defense classes with my mom, try to avoid walking alone at night, keep my doors locked, etc. Not once have I felt I should acquire a gun to help assure my safety, even when my dad offered to buy me one and get me lessons on how to operate it. I&#39;m positive that having one -- and actually trying to use it while in the midst of a dangerous encounter -- would probably make a bad situation even worse.</p>
<p>Like we&#39;ve discussed, society IS largely civilized. Thankfully. Again I&#39;ll ask how many people here have actually found themselves in situations where a weapon was needed? I say we keep striving to keep the guns in the hands of trained professionals, police officers and the military, where they belong.</p>Garry commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee636b698970d2012-12-13T16:35:28Z2012-12-13T16:35:28ZGarryA note to all that want a New York type of law, where the police determine who gets to carry....<p>A note to all that want a New York type of law, where the police determine who gets to carry.<br />
New York is enamored of celebrities &amp; gives them permits long before they&#39;ll give it to ordinary people who might really need it due to carrying large amounts of valuables..<br />
Among those the NY Post reported as having permits in 2007 are Donald Trump &amp; his son, Donald Trump Jr., actors Harvey Keitel, Robert DeNiro, DJs Howard Stern, Don Imus, music producer Tommy Mottola, cosmetic boss Ronald Lauder &amp; the head of Marvel Comics.<br />
Most of them already have private bodyguards, so why do they need to carry?<br />
Because they can.<br />
More recently I read that Joan Rivers also has a permit. I would think that face would scare off 99.99% of criminals!<br />
</p>Greg J. commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ec20f9d970c2012-12-13T15:59:44Z2012-12-13T15:59:44ZGreg J.@Esmom, What you are arguing seems to me to be a natural, understandable perspective and I respect your view. I...<p>@Esmom,</p>
<p>What you are arguing seems to me to be a natural, understandable perspective and I respect your view. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and believe me, I know what it&#39;s like to hold the minority position on this blog.</p>
<p>I agree that overall our society is civilized. However, there are individual actors who clearly are not. I live in the city and I see a lot of characters every day whom I don&#39;t trust at all. I&#39;d like the option to carry a weapon to protect myself against folks who don&#39;t think and act in a civilized manner like I do. We are all responsible for our own well-being and those of us who abdicate that responsibility to faith in society or the government are naive, and are dealing with the world as they want it to be rather than how it really is.</p>Boris Gendelev commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee636826d970d2012-12-13T15:59:32Z2012-12-13T15:59:32ZBoris GendelevEsmom, My recollection of relatively recently reported research is that actually, while perhaps attracting more publicity due to today's instant...<p>Esmom,</p>
<p>My recollection of relatively recently reported research is that actually, while perhaps attracting more publicity due to today&#39;s instant communication devices and media competition, the killing sprees are becoming more not less rare. That might have been more narrowly about school shootings though.</p>
<p>I haven&#39;t read much research into prevention of rampages like that. I imagine because of their rarity, they are not easy to study. Rampages against total strangers I think are even more rare. There is research that shows that given a gun a person does exhibit more aggression, which is consistent with the view of the brain as an associative network (you can actually feel merrier and you force yourself to form a smile). But its about degrees, not a binary on/off switch. Rampages are so rare that I have to lapse into using a single example that doesn&#39;t support gun control as a prevention against them: the recent massing killing in Norway (isn&#39;t it one of the worst, if not the worst ever?). My guess is that the more important factor is inter-personal connections / community life - essentially people watching over people, and... this would sound strange coming from an atheist, community-binding religious institutions. We may not like &quot;Pleasantville&quot; for its blandness (I would be the last one to advocate a conformist society), but we might be paying a certain price for being tolerant towards significant deviations from the norm.</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ec1ec15970c2012-12-13T15:38:57Z2012-12-13T15:38:57ZJL@Dave Smith - That is an argument against outlawing, or even controlling widespread access to, just about anything.<p>@Dave Smith - That is an argument against outlawing, or even controlling widespread access to, just about anything.</p>johnnyruss commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ec1e732970c2012-12-13T15:35:23Z2012-12-13T15:35:23ZjohnnyrussPracticing conceal carry is simply you taking responsiblity for your own safety...not conceding it to the police. What's the old...<p>Practicing conceal carry is simply you taking responsiblity for your own safety...not conceding it to the police.</p>
<p>What&#39;s the old saying? You can never find a cop when you need one?</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ec17fc7970c2012-12-13T14:20:08Z2012-12-13T14:20:17ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4I prefer to think in reverse of that. If we are civilized (and the vast majority of us are) then...<p>I prefer to think in reverse of that.</p>
<p>If we are civilized (and the vast majority of us are) then there is no need to deny the carrying of arms. After all, you have no need to fear what a civilized person would do.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c34925a06970b2012-12-13T13:57:47Z2012-12-13T13:57:47ZEsmom@Boris Gendelev, No offense taken. Agreed that the war on drugs is a huge part of the problem. And I...<p>@Boris Gendelev, No offense taken. Agreed that the war on drugs is a huge part of the problem. And I agree that the Trayvon Martin case is indeed murky, however I do still find Jill Lepore&#39;s comment to ring true.</p>
<p>I am heartened by the fact that most people do not carry guns, but I still think, with the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world by far, we have too many guns. The people who do own them typically own multiple ones so we still have about as many firearms as citizens in the U.S. And as shooting sprees like in the Oregon mall and Aurora movie theater become less rare, we have got to be more vigilant about restrictions.</p>
<p>In any case, I know the ship has already sailed but I just can&#39;t get behind the idea that a civilized society would ever be OK with armed citizens in our midst.</p>Boris Gendelev commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6329e86970d2012-12-13T03:26:36Z2012-12-13T03:26:36ZBoris Gendelev@Esmom "Baseless" was not "to me", nothing personal, but as in not based on facts or logic, as you readily...<p>@Esmom </p>
<p>&quot;Baseless&quot; was not &quot;to me&quot;, nothing personal, but as in not based on facts or logic, as you readily admitted yourself by essentially saying that you believe something in spite of the relevant facts (statistics). </p>
<p>And then you go on to using one nationally publicized incident, and a rather murky one at that, as proof of your beliefs. Coupling it with the Jill Lepore&#39;s overarching pronouncement - in fact most people do not carry guns even it has been legal in most states for some time - doesn&#39;t kept your emotionalism based case.</p>
<p>You want to reduce gun homicides (and homicides in general)? Lobby for legalization (with regulation) of narcotics. The insane war on drugs is what leading to most inner city shootings. </p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ebd6a92970c2012-12-13T01:12:05Z2012-12-13T01:12:10ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4@Esmom "Simply saying "this is the among the safest times ever to be an American" doesn't really reflect any actual...<p>@Esmom <br />
&quot;Simply saying &quot;this is the among the safest times ever to be an American&quot; doesn&#39;t really reflect any actual statistics.&quot;</p>
<p>Yes it does because it really does reflect actual statistics.This truly is the safest time to be an American since at least the early 1960s. One need only examine the FBI&#39;s uniform crime reports to determine that violent criminal activity began rising slowly around 1965, took off like mad in the early 70s, peaked in 1991 and has been steadily declining ever since. </p>
<p>The 70s and 80s...that was a dangerous time to be living in an American city, and the facts back that up.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6317453970d2012-12-13T00:03:39Z2012-12-13T00:03:39ZEsmomWhat may be baseless to you, worthy of dismissal, is further proof to me of how things have deteriorated for...<p>What may be baseless to you, worthy of dismissal, is further proof to me of how things have deteriorated for us as a society. As Jill Lepore wrote in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, &quot;When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.&quot;</p>Boris Gendelev commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6304ec9970d2012-12-12T20:37:14Z2012-12-12T20:37:14ZBoris GendelevEsmom, Yes, you clearly "believe", but since there is no logical necessity in one or the other outcome - different...<p>Esmom,</p>
<p>Yes, you clearly &quot;believe&quot;, but since there is no logical necessity in one or the other outcome - different forces pull in different directions - and there is no factual evidence one way or the other, your belief is baseless.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ebb59d6970c2012-12-12T19:10:50Z2012-12-12T19:10:50ZEsmomMr. Zorn, you're right didn't include any CCW specific stats. Like just about anything you can find data supporting each...<p>Mr. Zorn, you&#39;re right didn&#39;t include any CCW specific stats. Like just about anything you can find data supporting each side. I just wanted to point out that gun deaths are not on the decline as someone else asserted.</p>
<p>And to Brian, I apologize for going off topic. I wanted to quickly cite some stats on gun deaths, and suicide is included. My concern about the court&#39;s ruling is that it represents a shift in the wrong direction overall when it comes to gun laws. I believe in more restrictive requirements regarding who should be issued permits, not less. </p>Brian commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3ebafe73970c2012-12-12T18:09:25Z2012-12-12T18:09:25ZBrianhttp://profile.typepad.com/promark747--Esmom, What do suicide rates have to do with this topic?<p>--Esmom,</p>
<p>What do suicide rates have to do with this topic?</p>Xuuths commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eba7c3e970c2012-12-12T16:57:01Z2012-12-12T16:57:01ZXuuthshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Interesting reading on the majority's reasoning.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller</a></p>
<p>Interesting reading on the majority&#39;s reasoning.</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb9cdb8970c2012-12-12T15:23:21Z2012-12-12T15:23:21ZJL@Dave Smith: "Am I correct that you are supposing that gun ownership increases the risk of criminal activity?" I was...<p>@Dave Smith:</p>
<p>&quot;Am I correct that you are supposing that gun ownership increases the risk of criminal activity?&quot;</p>
<p>I was going to say &quot;no&quot; but that is not quite right. Yes but the way hammer ownership increases the risk of carpentry activity. I don&#39;t think owning a gun makes you into a criminal. I think it makes you a more effective criminal if that was your inclination in the first place. So, no on inclination but yes on activity.</p>
<p>I actually think responsible gun owners should cheer mandatory insurance, especially if many already have it anyway. It&#39;s a great way to let the private market control the bad actors so the government will feel less need to do so directly. It&#39;s a conservative proposal rooted in free markets and personal responsibility.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62dec38970d2012-12-12T14:43:37Z2012-12-12T14:43:37ZEsmom--Mr. Zorn, Forgive my skepticism when it comes to "facts" that are provided by a less-than-neutral party. Didn't this past...<p>--Mr. Zorn, Forgive my skepticism when it comes to &quot;facts&quot; that are provided by a less-than-neutral party. Didn&#39;t this past election prove that any side can pick and choose and twists facts to fit his/her own agenda? Simply saying &quot;this is the among the safest times ever to be an American&quot; doesn&#39;t really reflect any actual statistics.</p>
<p>In any case, I find the facts from the Illinois Council on Handgun Violence to be troubling. To me, they indicate that we are in crisis. Here are just a couple, with sources included:</p>
<p>FACT: In 2007, there were 31,224 gun deaths in the U.S, a increase from the 2006 total of 31,224: 12,632 homicides (40% of total deaths), 17,352 suicides (56% of total deaths), 613 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 321 from legal intervention (1.1% of total deaths) and 276 from undetermined intent (.9% of total deaths).</p>
<p>(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2010.)</p>
<p>FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 55.6% of total 2007 gun deaths nationwide. In 2007, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,352, an increase from 2006 total of 16,883 gun suicides. Total gun suicides in Illinois for 2007 were 423, an increase of 13.7% from the 2006 number 372. Over half of suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.</p>
<p>(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2010; and the American Association of Suicidology.)</p>
<p>FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.</p>
<p>(A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. “The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries.” Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)</p>
<p>ZORN REPLY -- Not a one of these troubling statistics bears on the issue of concealed carry, however.</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c348a61e0970b2012-12-12T14:30:51Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4@Esmom Violent crime is at its lowest rates in over 50 years. Crisis levels were 20+ years ago. Now is...<p>@Esmom<br />
Violent crime is at its lowest rates in over 50 years. Crisis levels were 20+ years ago. Now is among the safest times ever to be an American. </p>
<p>At the same time, over the last 30 years, gun laws have basically gotten more liberalized, not more strict, tens of millions of more firearms have entered private hands, and millions are packing daily across the country.</p>
<p>If there were some sort of negative link between the two then I it should stand out clearly but it doesn&#39;t.</p>
<p>The bottom line is you won&#39;t even notice that we have LTC. </p>
<p>So when Mr Zorn says &#39;its not the end of the world&#39; he&#39;s absolutely right, and experience over the last 30 years demonstrates how true this is.</p>MrJM commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb9182d970c2012-12-12T13:54:12Z2012-12-12T13:54:12ZMrJMhttps://twitter.com/#!/misterjayemOnly once thing is for certain: once I get my concealed pistol, I ain't gonna hafta take no mess off'a...<p>Only once thing is for certain: once I get my concealed pistol, I ain&#39;t gonna hafta take no mess off&#39;a nobody!</p>
<p>NOBODY!!1!</p>
<p>-- MrJM</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62d0e03970d2012-12-12T12:51:58Z2012-12-12T12:51:58ZEsmom--@Dave Smith, maybe, maybe not. I recently had a heated discussion with a pro-gun acquaintance, a former Marine and current...<p>--@Dave Smith, maybe, maybe not. I recently had a heated discussion with a pro-gun acquaintance, a former Marine and current Chicago police officer. He was lamenting the lack of CCW laws here, saying they could have helped a situation with a gunman that occurred on an L train earlier this year. </p>
<p>I argued that armed citizens intervening would surely resulted in more injuries and/or deaths and his response basically was &quot;who cares as long as the bad guy was one of them.&quot; </p>
<p>Of course there are many peaceful, law-abiding gun owners. You can quote all the stats you want but that police officer&#39;s mentality to me is a clear indicator that less restrictive gun laws will NOT help the violent crimes crisis we are facing in Chicago but possibly exacerbate it.</p>
<p>In light of what happened in Oregon last night, I&#39;m bracing myself to hear that same acquaintance weigh in with his tired old cliche, that &quot;guns don&#39;t kill people, people kill people.&quot; I&#39;m sorry but he (or anyone) cannot convince me that a guy with a different weapon like a knife, for example, would have inflicted just as much damage.</p>
<p>ZORN REPLY -- I don&#39;t know any other way to address this kind of dispute than with statistics. If you like to think of yourself as a member of the fact-based community you simply aren&#39;t allowed to say &quot;you can&#39;t quote all the stats you want&quot; but I feel this must not be true. That&#39;s the kind of debating tactic used by our friends who want to keep gay people down, for instance, or hope to perpetuate the death penalty and keep taxes low on the rich.</p>Garry commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62a584a970d2012-12-12T05:00:12Z2012-12-12T05:00:12ZGarry---@JL: Since the state constitution makes all residents members of the militia, that's the well regulated. The "well regulated" is...<p>---@JL: Since the state constitution makes all residents members of the militia, that&#39;s the well regulated.<br />
The &quot;well regulated&quot; is federal, not state concept.<br />
But you always have a group of anti-gun people claiming that only militia members should be allowed to possess a gun, let alone carry one.<br />
The state constitution screws that idea every way you can think of!<br />
The State Guard Act, 20 ILCS 1815 states that everyone between 18-45 is a member &amp; officers may be between 21-64. The governor is in total control of the state guard &amp; can call them up at will. So basically the governor could ask for volunteers to be members to patrol Chicago &amp; the state will arm them &amp; pay them.<br />
OK, so that part is definitely well regulated, again, the state constitution makes no mention of that.</p>
<p>Now, no matter what your beliefs on guns are, this is yet another nail in the coffin of an atrociously written constitution!<br />
Do you really want a militia made up of the 10,000,000 over 18s in the state? That&#39;s what the constitution says, while the State Guard Act narrows that down to less than half of that.</p>
<p>Two years ago, a concentrated drive by the teacher&#39;s unions killed a constitutional convention on the ballot. They will live to regret that when the teacher&#39;s pension plans collapse from underfunding. There&#39;s a point where the state has no more money to fund them &amp; no court will ever order an increase in taxes to fund them, so they&#39;ll have to file bankruptcy &amp; just liquidate themselves.</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62a4156970d2012-12-12T04:45:40Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4No idea what a premium would be (that is, liability for accidents, not criminal acts). I'm just speaking hypothetically. That...<p>No idea what a premium would be (that is, liability for accidents, not criminal acts).<br />
I&#39;m just speaking hypothetically.</p>
<p>That said, I expect that the minimum coverage would be well above 100,000, probably $1M +</p>
<p>Am I correct that you are supposing that gun ownership increases the risk of criminal activity? </p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3486922d970b2012-12-12T04:09:25Z2012-12-12T04:09:25ZJL@Garry - How does private gun ownership, let alone concealed carry, promote this militia (most of whose members probably don't...<p>@Garry - How does private gun ownership, let alone concealed carry, promote this militia (most of whose members probably don&#39;t know they are in it) being well regulated?</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb591c9970c2012-12-12T04:00:33Z2012-12-12T04:00:33ZJL@Dave Smith - I don't know that requiring the insurance to cover criminal acts would be cost-prohibitive for either the...<p>@Dave Smith - I don&#39;t know that requiring the insurance to cover criminal acts would be cost-prohibitive for either the insurers or low-risk customers. We run somewhere around 10,000 gun homicides in the U.S. per year. Assuming the same $100,000 liability insurance that is pretty standard for cars, that comes to $1 billion per year -- or about $3 for the average firearm in the U.S. by your 300 million count. There are, of course, gun crime damages other than homicides but, on the other hand, most of the gun crimes are committed by people who would be considered high-risk in the first place.</p>
<p>As far as stolen guns, it would not be that hard to have clauses in the policies that continued the coverage for no further premiums if you filed a police report -- which, of course, is something people would be hesitant to do fraudulently and which (especially when combined with insurance fraud) gives some pretty good tools to lock up people who did falsely claim guns they had sold into the black market had been stolen. It is just one more risk to price in -- and, as with cars and homes, there presumably would be discounts for taking various sensible anti-theft precautions.</p>
<p>As to not being able to make much of a dent in the existing black market, people would not be diverting legally bought new guns into the black market if there was already a glut. There obviously is still demand. Anyway, first rule of holes -- when you are in one, stop digging.</p>
<p>It is not messing with peaceable gun owners. It is requiring them to take some basic responsibility for the risk they create. If that risk is small, the insurance costs will be, too. If you really are creating enough risk that it gets expensive, all the more reason you should be insured.</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb579ca970c2012-12-12T03:43:57Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4@Esmom Experience has shown that the idea you have quoted is more than likely the words of an anti-gun person...<p>@Esmom </p>
<p>Experience has shown that the idea you have quoted is more than likely the words of an anti-gun person projecting what they think a pro-gun person thinks...basically, nothing resembling reality.</p>
<p>The experience borne out by the past 30 years should tell you that 49 other states have Concealed Carry and don&#39;t experience any noticeable change in criminal activity up or down because of it. The issuing of permits and the lawful carrying goes on almost entirely unnoticed.</p>Garry commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb5215b970c2012-12-12T02:41:34Z2012-12-12T02:41:34ZGarry@blahedo: Guess what? The Illinois Constitution has trumped you: "ARTICLE XII MILITIA SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of...<p>@blahedo: Guess what?<br />
The Illinois Constitution has trumped you:<br />
&quot;ARTICLE XII<br />
MILITIA<br />
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP<br />
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.&quot;</p>
<p>So we all belong to the militia with the probable exceptions of children, criminals &amp; the insane.<br />
It even includes illegal aliens!</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3485fd8f970b2012-12-12T02:27:56Z2012-12-12T02:27:56ZEsmom"I want to be able to empty a clip at them and know that the law will protect me..." This...<p>&quot;I want to be able to empty a clip at them and know that the law will protect me...&quot;</p>
<p>This is exactly what scares me about CCW laws. Heaven help us all.</p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb4acdd970c2012-12-12T01:23:58Z2012-12-12T01:23:58ZTaxpayerThat's not what stand your ground is, nor is gunning down people breaking into your neighbors' house a good idea....<p>That&#39;s not what stand your ground is, nor is gunning down people breaking into your neighbors&#39; house a good idea. Lethal force is not justified to defend property. </p>Wendy commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c34858567970b2012-12-12T01:05:30Z2012-12-12T01:05:30ZWendyYet, another mass shooting in Oregon...<p>Yet, another mass shooting in Oregon...</p>BC commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee628febc970d2012-12-12T01:02:53Z2012-12-12T01:02:53ZBCI hope that Illinois DOES pass a "stand your ground" law. If I see someone robbing my neighbor;s house, I...<p>I hope that Illinois DOES pass a &quot;stand your ground&quot; law. If I see someone robbing my neighbor;s house, I want to be able to empty a clip at them and know that the law will protect me, just like it did for that guy down in Houston who gunned down two teenagers robbing his neighbor&#39;s house a few years ago.<br />
</p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee628ca93970d2012-12-12T00:26:42Z2012-12-12T00:26:42ZTaxpayerIndiana and Wisconsin both require permits. Wisconsin requires training. Neither requires insurance as far as I can tell. Personally, I...<p>Indiana and Wisconsin both require permits. Wisconsin requires training. Neither requires insurance as far as I can tell. Personally, I feel safer in Wisconsin than Indiana, but it has nothing to do with their respective concealed carry laws. I don&#39;t much care for Hoosiers, but Cheeseheads are basically ok by me. I happily live in Illinois and this ruling doesn&#39;t make me feel safer or less safe.</p>
<p>So, is an AR-15 more or less accurate than a musket? I know which one I&#39;d prefer to have in combat, even in an open field with an enemy at 100 yards.</p>DaveB commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb439ed970c2012-12-12T00:04:23Z2012-12-12T00:04:23ZDaveBWhy all the restrictions? It seems that whenever a right is granted, or in this case affirmed, people come out...<p>Why all the restrictions? It seems that whenever a right is granted, or in this case affirmed, people come out of the woodwork to try to circumscribe it. With abortion it&#39;s parental consent, waiting periods, and transvaginal ultrasounds. With CCW it&#39;s permits, training, and insurance. Two sides of the same coin.<br />
<br />
Illinois is surrounded by states with some form of concealed carry. Do they have all of these restrictions? When you cross into Indiana, are you more afraid of being shot? Wisconsin? The danger there is more of OD&#39;ing on cheese and wanting to tear your eyes out because of all the Packer logos than of being shot. Are Illinois people more savage than those of Wisconsin or Indiana? Or do we have more savages?</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c34852553970b2012-12-11T23:59:41Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4@JL "where is the justification for saying anything is too far?" Since 'We the People' are ultimately the final arbiter...<p>@JL<br />
&quot;where is the justification for saying anything is too far?&quot;</p>
<p>Since &#39;We the People&#39; are ultimately the final arbiter of the Constitution (Yes the people as decider take final precedence over the SCOTUS) &#39;We the People&#39; for the most part commonly understand &#39;arms&#39; to mean &#39;personal arms&#39;</p>
<p>yes every now and then you get some folks like those above who talk about &#39;muskets&#39; being the only &#39;arms&#39; the constitution protects...those people are few and far between however.</p>
<p><br />
A rifle, handgun, shotgun, star-trek phaser(when its finally invented) are personal arms. I&#39;m tempted to throw &#39;machine gun&#39; in there since its legal to own them too (if you know how), but most people don&#39;t know it.</p>
<p>The common militiaman (we are the militia after all) is likely to carry any of these, and could concievably be required to provide their own.</p>
<p>The cannon, mortar, tank, missile launchers, etc are not personal arms, they are crew weapons. These are things the armory would be expected to provide to the Unit.</p>
<p><br />
Of course, given the expense, the more exotic weapons are effectively unavailable to the general public anyways. <br />
A law banning the ownership of a functional, armed tank is basically moot. There&#39;s only a couple dozen people who could afford one anyways. And of course the first time you take it out for a spin some darn fool will drop a bomb on it from a drone.</p>DaveB commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3485230c970b2012-12-11T23:58:07Z2012-12-11T23:58:07ZDaveBTaxpayer, that's the weapon itself, supported, and with human factors eliminated. The accuracy trouble with the AR-15 is that it's...<p>Taxpayer, that&#39;s the weapon itself, supported, and with human factors eliminated. The accuracy trouble with the AR-15 is that it&#39;s light, and recoil, breathing, etc. affect its accuracy when it&#39;s handheld. But it wasn&#39;t designed to engage targets at 100 yards; in the jungle fighting it was designed for, a target 100 yards away can&#39;t even be seen. It was designed to be easy to carry (light) and to be able to engage targets at close quarters.</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3485222b970b2012-12-11T23:57:31Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4@JL To my knowledge no State has a requirement that CCW permit holders carry liability insurance. (I am pretty familiar...<p>@JL</p>
<p>To my knowledge no State has a requirement that CCW permit holders carry liability insurance. (I am pretty familiar with the CCW laws of other states being involved for the last 8 years)<br />
So I doubt that it would actually be required here either.<br />
That being said, considering the cost of defending oneself in court, it would probably be wise for anyone who does get CCW to purchase such insurance, especially if you live in Chicagoland where the prosecutors are often anti-gun zealots.<br />
You can be rest assured that when someone takes a CCW training course, even if its not legislatively required, the instructors will recommend such insurance.</p>
<p><br />
To a few of your questions: My take.</p>
<p><br />
&quot;Is there any reason the General Assembly could not require that gun liability insurance cover even intentional criminal acts&quot;</p>
<p>The insurance industry response might be to stop offering gun liability insurance almost entirely. (could you really blame them)<br />
Which would kinda of make a law requiring such insurance a defacto ban on owning firearms.<br />
If they didn&#39;t stop offering such policies, but the policies turned out to be cost prohibitive, I&#39;d expect that &#39;cover criminal acts&#39; requirement at least to be struck down.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The idea of insurance following the gun suffers from the same problem of liability for the owner...namely that it would only come into play during legal transfers.</p>
<p>You&#39;ll have a hard time convincing people that they continue to pay insurance on a firearm that they no longer posess simply because it was stolen. <br />
The idea that &#39;by default: if the firearm is reported stolen, the owner MUST have been negligent and should still be held liable&#39; just won&#39;t fly.<br />
Then also, the idea of hauling the victim of such a crime before a court so the court to determine if they were negligent is just as unlikely to fly.<br />
And of course the fact that there are some 300+ million firearms in circulation in the US already means its effect on the black market of firearms would ultimately be insignificant anyways. Just one more way to mess with the peacable gun owner.</p>
<p>Ultimately this kind of an insurance requirement would probably be struck down as being too burdensome.<br />
</p>Greg J. commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6288ae0970d2012-12-11T23:42:52Z2012-12-11T23:42:52ZGreg J.@Taxpayer, Sorry if I misunderstood you and you do have a good practical point, but the law requires more. The...<p>@Taxpayer,</p>
<p>Sorry if I misunderstood you and you do have a good practical point, but the law requires more. The common sense place to stop would be after the first paragraph of the decision that Eric cites above. The reason the court went further is to satisfy its legal obligation to address the Illinois regulation through the legal standard of scrutiny it requires. The court correctly rejects the rational basis test and applies a higher level of scrutiny to the Illinois regulation (my guess is &quot;strict scrutiny&quot; but I haven&#39;t had time to parse the whole thing). The court uses the weasel words quite purposefully to show that Illinois had a constitutional obligation to satisfy the appropriate level of scrutiny to withstand the second amendment challenge. In other words, the burden was on Illinois. It&#39;s complicated and this is a shorthand response but that&#39;s basically what it did.</p>
<p>@JL,</p>
<p>That&#39;s the $10,000 question. You astutely picked up on the word &quot;infringe,&quot; which bothers me too.</p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c34850526970b2012-12-11T23:36:48Z2012-12-11T23:36:48ZTaxpayerWhy? When evidence is inconclusive or contradictory, aren't legislatures better positioned than courts to determine what the best course of...<p>Why? When evidence is inconclusive or contradictory, aren&#39;t legislatures better positioned than courts to determine what the best course of action should be? Aren&#39;t they more able to change course in response to new evidence, since they aren&#39;t bound by precedent as courts are? </p>
<p>Of course courts should be able to strike down laws that are unconstitutional or unreasonable (in the legal sense), but they should defer to legislatures that choose one of several reasonable options in the face of uncertainty.</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3484f52a970b2012-12-11T23:26:07Z2012-12-11T23:26:07ZJL@Taxpayer - I don't like the outcome but uncertainty needs to cut towards *denying* the government power to do something...<p>@Taxpayer - I don&#39;t like the outcome but uncertainty needs to cut towards *denying* the government power to do something constitutionally questionable.</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb3ffb7970c2012-12-11T23:22:41Z2012-12-11T23:22:41ZJLGoing the opposite direction from Icarus, where is the justification in the 2nd Amendment for banning any type of weapon...<p>Going the opposite direction from Icarus, where is the justification in the 2nd Amendment for banning any type of weapon -- fully automatic guns, nuclear, chemical/biological, etc.? Once we say it requires allowing access to weapons far beyond those known to the 1st Congress, where is the justification for saying anything is too far?</p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb3f401970c2012-12-11T23:15:47Z2012-12-11T23:15:47ZTaxpayerI mean, look at this sentence from the opinion, quoted above: "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive)...<p>I mean, look at this sentence from the opinion, quoted above:</p>
<p>&quot;The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense.&quot;</p>
<p>Can you count the weasel words? First, the parenthetical admitting that there is no conclusive evidence that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Second, &quot;is consistent with&quot; does not mean &quot;shows&quot; or &quot;proves&quot; - all it means is &quot;does not disprove,&quot; which isn&#39;t saying much and turns courts&#39; typical deference to legislatures&#39; decisions on its head. Finally, Judge Posner rights that creating a right to carry in public &quot;may&quot; promote self-defense. Yeah, well, it &quot;may&quot; not - after all, the evidence is inconclusive. </p>
<p>Based on this sandy foundation, the court invents a new right out of thin air and overrides the judgment of the duly-elected legislature. If this isn&#39;t judicial activism, nothing is.</p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6285a5e970d2012-12-11T23:08:34Z2012-12-11T23:08:34ZTaxpayerMy issue isn't with the incorporation doctrine and I can't imagine how you could think it was based on what...<p>My issue isn&#39;t with the incorporation doctrine and I can&#39;t imagine how you could think it was based on what I wrote above. I&#39;m in favor of the Second Amendment (and the entire Bill of Rights) applying to the states.</p>
<p>My issue is with the judiciary unjustifiably overriding the will of the legislature and making policy based on evidence, including &quot;theoretical evidence,&quot; that it admits is inconclusive.</p>Greg J. commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb3dd04970c2012-12-11T23:01:32Z2012-12-11T23:01:32ZGreg J.@Taxpayer, You wrote - "I don't have a problem with concealed carry, but this is judicial activism of the worst...<p>@Taxpayer,</p>
<p>You wrote -</p>
<p>&quot;I don&#39;t have a problem with concealed carry, but this is judicial activism of the worst kind. ... So why does the court think it&#39;s in a position to make better judgments than the legislature in the face of inconclusive evidence? That&#39;s not what courts are for.&quot;</p>
<p>The legal answer to your question is incorporation doctrine whereby most of the Bill of Rights is automatically applied to the states. You can argue the merits of the interpretation of the Second Amendment and you can argue that the federal government ought not interfere with the states (and I&#39;ll go a long way with you on that), but incorporation doctrine imposes the Bill of Rights on the states. Want to overturn incorporation doctrine? That&#39;s a separate issue.</p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb3daec970c2012-12-11T23:00:21Z2012-12-11T23:00:21ZTaxpayerI'm no expert, but I'd think even an AR-15 is a lot more accurate than a musket. As I understand...<p>I&#39;m no expert, but I&#39;d think even an AR-15 is a lot more accurate than a musket. As I understand it after doing a minute of research, an AR-15 is accurate within 4 minutes of angle, which is approximately accurate to within four inches at 100 yards. Muskets could probably hit a man at 100 yards, but not within any specified four inches on him.</p>
<p>And Colorado has concealed carry. Didn&#39;t stop the theater shooter from doing what he did. Nor did it make it worse, but it&#39;s pretty much useless to generalize from one sensational case.</p>DaveB commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62825c0970d2012-12-11T22:35:47Z2012-12-11T22:35:47ZDaveBIcarus, have you ever fired an AR-15 (the "Mattel Machine Gun)? "Extreme accuracy" is not one of its strong points....<p>Icarus, have you ever fired an AR-15 (the &quot;Mattel Machine Gun)? &quot;Extreme accuracy&quot; is not one of its strong points. It was designed for close-quarters jungle combat; the closer you are to your target, the less accurate you have to be.</p>Icarus commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62806bd970d2012-12-11T22:16:36Z2012-12-11T22:16:36ZIcarushttp://www.mysteries-of-life.comI always like to seek wisdom from a higher source for questions like this. http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html and We should also consider...<p>I always like to seek wisdom from a higher source for questions like this.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p>We should also consider what &quot;bear arms&quot; meant when it was written. Back then, guns were muskets, and muskets could fire about three incredibly inaccurate rounds per minute. Today, an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle can shoot off more than 60 rounds per minute with extreme accuracy, and reload in seconds. Perhaps it&#39;s time to reevaluate our needs and freedoms</p>
<p>Read more: <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p2/#ixzz2EmglJ7cm" rel="nofollow">http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p2/#ixzz2EmglJ7cm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/</a></p>I don't take the train commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb3890c970c2012-12-11T22:11:40Z2012-12-11T22:11:40ZI don't take the trainSeventeen years ago, Eric wrote, "The rest were the result of idiocy." Then perhaps we can look forward to more...<p>Seventeen years ago, Eric wrote, &quot;The rest were the result of idiocy.&quot;</p>
<p>Then perhaps we can look forward to more stories like this one:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/joliet/chi-joliet-man-shoots-kills-brother-who-killed-their-father-20121211,0,6722100.story" rel="nofollow">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/joliet/chi-joliet-man-shoots-kills-brother-who-killed-their-father-20121211,0,6722100.story</a></p>
<p>Giving fools the awesome power of a handgun makes this sort of story far more likely. It has little to do with concealed carry, but it does show the need for common sense gun control laws.</p>Esmom commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb37e16970c2012-12-11T22:04:31Z2012-12-11T22:04:31ZEsmom@Kip, I'm with you. Bob Costas, too. To the people who say that the Aurora shootings could have been minimized...<p>@Kip, I&#39;m with you. Bob Costas, too.</p>
<p>To the people who say that the Aurora shootings could have been minimized had other theater-goers been able to cary concealed weapons, I say get real. Had that been the case, I think the number of fatalities and injuries would have been much higher.</p>
<p>Not sure if sharing links is allowed but this is one of he best articles on gun laws and the evolution of today&#39;s gun culture that I&#39;ve read in a long time: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore</a></p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee627ea7e970d2012-12-11T21:59:07Z2012-12-11T21:59:07ZJL@Smiths :) - Is there any reason the General Assembly could not require that gun liability insurance cover even intentional...<p>@Smiths :) - </p>
<p>Is there any reason the General Assembly could not require that gun liability insurance cover even intentional criminal acts. If you want to let the insurance company try to recover the money from the policyholder, fine.</p>
<p>As to homeowner&#39;s insurance and suing the guy who shoots you, my impression is that the people doing the shootings are not especially likely (as an overall pattern) to have homeowner&#39;s insurance or assets to pay a judgement. So, you may ask, why would they buy gun insurance? First, I would structure it so that the manufacturer of the gun had to buy the initial policy and any given policy could only be relieved of liability when the gun was transferred to a new policy or certified as being destroyed or made permanently inoperable. Big incentive not to let your gun fall into the black market, as with straw purchasers. Second, some wouldn&#39;t buy insurance, which sounds like a great tool to give prosecutors to go after people up to no good *before* they get around to actually shooting someone.</p>
<p>Who would it discourage? People who are bad risks. If you are a responsible, upstanding citizen but poor, I suspect the free market price for your gun insurance would be less than for your car insurance (also required if you want to own that dangerous product).<br />
</p>Bob Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c348435cb970b2012-12-11T21:27:14Z2012-12-11T21:27:14ZBob Smith@JL---how would insurance help victims of gun crime? You can already sue the guy who shoots you. And whom would...<p>@JL---how would insurance help victims of gun crime? You can already sue the guy who shoots you. And whom would it discourage from buying and carrying a gun? Poor people? Should this be a right only for the wealthy?</p>Kip commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb32c43970c2012-12-11T21:15:37Z2012-12-11T21:15:37ZKipYeah, if everyone either has, or thinks everyone else just might have a gun, there will automatically be less shooting....<p>Yeah, if everyone either has, or thinks everyone else just might have a gun, there will automatically be less shooting. Brilliant logic. </p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb30fbd970c2012-12-11T20:58:32Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4I'm not so sure that liability insurance would compensate the victim of a willful criminal act by a policyholder. Accidents...<p>I&#39;m not so sure that liability insurance would compensate the victim of a willful criminal act by a policyholder.</p>
<p>Accidents of course, but I think that would usually be covered under existing homeowner insurance policies usually (at least for accidents at your residence)</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb2cfdd970c2012-12-11T20:20:29Z2012-12-11T20:20:29ZJLBy the way, whatever else the General Assembly does on this, it should require liability insurance at a minimum level...<p>By the way, whatever else the General Assembly does on this, it should require liability insurance at a minimum level for any gun. Aside from compensating victims of gun crimes and accidents, it would create a pretty strong free-market deterrent to gun ownership by people we all probably agree shouldn&#39;t have guns, while putting little burden on responsible people.</p>Bob Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb2c46e970c2012-12-11T20:13:53Z2012-12-11T20:13:53ZBob Smith@taxpayer. and to continue, the reason SCOTUS didn't rule on carry outside the home is because they were not asked...<p>@taxpayer. and to continue, the reason SCOTUS didn&#39;t rule on carry outside the home is because they were not asked to. The Heller lawyers purposely kept it specific. Also, the fact that the studies on its impact is &quot;inconclusive&quot; actually supports the decision. Illinois had to prove they had good reason to ban people from carrying in public for self defense. They were unable to provide that. Almost all studies say concealed carry does not impact crime one way or the other. </p>Bob Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3483b3b4970b2012-12-11T20:10:23Z2012-12-11T20:10:23ZBob Smith@TAXPAYER Posner did not say that 2A permitted concealed carry, just that if you have a right to be armed...<p>@TAXPAYER Posner did not say that 2A permitted concealed carry, just that if you have a right to be armed for self-defense in the home, then you have that right outside the home...just like the right to free speech does not stop at your door. </p>
<p>If they wanted, Illinois could pass a law saying concealed carry is still illegal, but you can open-carry in public. (I doubt they will, however)</p>Dave Smith commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee62725ca970d2012-12-11T20:06:02Z2012-12-12T21:25:22ZDave Smithhttp://profile.typepad.com/davesmith4Illinois does not have to pass a Concealed Carry bill within 180 days. Thats not what the Justices have ordered....<p>Illinois does not have to pass a Concealed Carry bill within 180 days. Thats not what the Justices have ordered.</p>
<p>The Justices have said that in 180 days, Illinois&#39; blanket prohibition on carrying of firearms will be nullified because it is in violation of the US Constitution.</p>
<p>The 180 day timeframe was given to allow the Legislature the opportunity to craft laws that will conform to the US Constitution....basically laws granting permits and such.</p>
<p>Or, the Legislature can simply do nothing at all, and in 180 days Illinois would have the same type of carry laws that Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have. (meaning no permit required for Concealed or Open carry)</p>JL commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3483aaeb970b2012-12-11T20:05:12Z2012-12-11T20:05:12ZJLAnybody have a principled argument for infringing this right in courthouses? If the risk that a civilian *might* have a...<p>Anybody have a principled argument for infringing this right in courthouses? If the risk that a civilian *might* have a gun is a deterrent to criminal use of a gun, surely the knowledge that multiple trained law-enforcement officers *definitely* have them is a much bigger deterrent. </p>Taxpayer commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb29a40970c2012-12-11T19:50:57Z2012-12-11T19:50:57ZTaxpayerI don't have a problem with concealed carry, but this is judicial activism of the worst kind. I don't see...<p>I don&#39;t have a problem with concealed carry, but this is judicial activism of the worst kind. I don&#39;t see anything in the text of the Second Amendment mandating that states allow concealed carry in public. Posner&#39;s attempt to read a constitutional right to concealed carry into the &quot;and bear&quot; language in the Second Amendment is so weak as to be embarrassing. Even he has to admit that the theoretical (!) and empirical evidence is inconclusive. So why does the court think it&#39;s in a position to make better judgments than the legislature in the face of inconclusive evidence? That&#39;s not what courts are for.</p>Buster commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb26859970c2012-12-11T19:20:26Z2012-12-11T19:20:26ZBuster@blahedo - I agree with you. SCOTUS itself essentially ignored that first clause in upholding the individual right to bear...<p>@blahedo - </p>
<p>I agree with you. SCOTUS itself essentially ignored that first clause in upholding the individual right to bear arms, as opposed to a &quot;militia-based&quot; right. But if an individual&#39;s right to bear arms (even handguns), then Illinois ought not be the unconstitutional outlier.</p>blahedo commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c34834b4a970b2012-12-11T19:07:37Z2012-12-11T19:07:37Zblahedohttp://www.blahedo.org/blog/I really want to see a law that requires people who want to carry weapons to be trained and regulated....<p>I really want to see a law that requires people who want to carry weapons to be trained and regulated. Bonus points if the card they have to carry has the word &quot;militia&quot; on it.</p>
<p>Pro-gun advocates that invoke the 2nd Amendment always seem to entirely forget about the existence of its first clause.</p>lexi commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb24f7c970c2012-12-11T19:04:45Z2012-12-11T19:04:45ZlexiCriminals will carry concealed weapons no matter what the law. They will be less inclined to use those weapons if...<p>Criminals will carry concealed weapons no matter what the law. </p>
<p>They will be less inclined to use those weapons if they think non-criminals may be carrying concealed firearms. </p>Buster commented on 'This is not the end of the world, gun-control advocates'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3eb24d5c970c2012-12-11T19:03:06Z2012-12-11T19:03:06ZBusterI have no problem with concealed carry laws, provided that Illinois does not pass the idiotic "stand your ground" laws...<p>I have no problem with concealed carry laws, provided that Illinois does not pass the idiotic &quot;stand your ground&quot; laws that ALEC previously foisted on many Red States.</p>